Notice the moving goalposts. We were never waiting for a vaccine, the lockdowns were to "flatten the curve" to avoid overwhelming the hospitals. Now the tune has changed and the ones signing that tune all belong to one political party. Strange how that happens.

A British tabloid? Just how truthful/factual it it? I don't doubt JP Morgan did a study but what's their motive? Let he who is without bias cast the first fact.

I stopped watching the news a week ago. I just can't watch and listen to all the bullshit and fear mongering. What's actually going on in the world during this misdirection???

Several sources have this report and dailymail while not the best of sources is not quite tabloid level. Doesn't matter though the meat of the report is still the same. The motive for JP Morgan is to direct investment. The author is one of their strategists.

I would argue it is impossible to have no bias, but that facts and analysis can still be correct even if you ascribe bias to the author. Which as far as I can tell Marko Kolanovic "a trained physicist and a strategist for JP Morgan" doesn't have a clear bias one way or the other that I could find actually.

I would argue that just because you may disagree with this article the data supports the conclusions it draws. I posted the dailymail article because it reproduced the specific graphs and quotes from the article so you can view the data yourself and draw your own conclusions if you wish.

Several sources have this report and dailymail while not the best of sources is not quite tabloid level. Doesn't matter though the meat of the report is still the same. The motive for JP Morgan is to direct investment. The author is one of their strategists.

I would argue it is impossible to have no bias, but that facts and analysis can still be correct even if you ascribe bias to the author. Which as far as I can tell Marko Kolanovic "a trained physicist and a strategist for JP Morgan" doesn't have a clear bias one way or the other that I could find actually.

I would argue that just because you may disagree with this article the data supports the conclusions it draws. I posted the dailymail article because it reproduced the specific graphs and quotes from the article so you can view the data yourself and draw your own conclusions if you wish.

I don't disagree with it because I have no way to trust it. Type "daily mail' or daily mail reputation' or any other and it's described as a 'tabloid' and of 'questionable reputation'. If the motive of JP Morgan is to direct investment then that is it's bias. Like a car salesman listing all the merits of a new car. He not likely to say it's a piece of shit. Instead, the things that will make you want to buy it.

I don't disagree with it because I have no way to trust it. Type "daily mail' or daily mail reputation' or any other and it's described as a 'tabloid' and of 'questionable reputation'. If the motive of JP Morgan is to direct investment then that is it's bias. Like a car salesman listing all the merits of a new car. He not likely to say it's a piece of shit. Instead, the things that will make you want to buy it.

That's a fair criticism. But I would also state that in investment having your analyst only give you the "good news" is the worst possible thing they can do and would result in your long term investments failing if they do not meet reality. As I said the data is available so if you wish to "fact check it" you are free to do so. What I saw appeared to be correct and accurate with no obvious "lying by statistics" games being played. The conclusions drawn seemed reasonable and supported by the evidence displayed, really hard to ask for more than that outside of peer review.

Like everything, you never have a complete picture with foolproof evidence. You have to make a reasoned decision with what you have.

As far as this data goes I would note this is not the only source giving this same outcome so the *"confidence" in it being a correct interpretation goes up.

*confidence used in the manner of "how close to a certain truth" your model gets. Several data points that supports a specific model of how something operates increase the confidence in that model being correct. For models that have no data available you can assign an arbitrary value based on a guesstimate and your experience and the context of the situation and then devise ways of improving your knowledge to affect your confidence value for that notion. By using a numerically based system (or weighting your pros and cons) you can make a rational decision based on logic not emotion even with data that is incomplete in nature.

Rates may be lower after lock down because people have learned to practice hand washing, social distancing, reduced socializing outside the home. I think these three could have worked without the shutdown but I say 'could' have worked. Only a severe shock to the system can bring this about... like a lock down that has shaken people awake and got them doing this. People today don't trust those they put in place to look after their own good. If you said sanitize your hands 8 times a day, keep 2 meters apart in public and stay out of planes, trains, buses, elevators, sports arenas, schools and theaters 6 months ago people would just stare at you.

Rates may be lower after lock down because people have learned to practice hand washing, social distancing, reduced socializing outside the home. I think these three could have worked without the shutdown but I say 'could' have worked. Only a severe shock to the system can bring this about... like a lock down that has shaken people awake and got them doing this. People today don't trust those they put in place to look after their own good. If you said sanitize your hands 8 times a day, keep 2 meters apart in public and stay out of planes, trains, buses, elevators, sports arenas, schools and theaters 6 months ago people would just stare at you.

Except I've already posted multiple times that the rates are lower because 1. the models were horribly flawed, 2. the mortality rate is much lower than expected, 3. locking down vs. minor actions of social distancing and hand washing but not shutting down (i.e., Sweden) both had the same outcome with regards to mortality rate, except not locking down had the bonus of herd immunity negating the possibility of a "second wave" (so net positive outcome per disease and large net positive outcome economically). 4. the lock down has had many other negative effects outside of disease including economic collapse, unemployment, ignoring other diseases, depression, etc..

I will come back to my original thesis point of all of my posts, which at this point are heavily supported by sourced data that I have posted ad nauseum

THE LOCKDOWN IS NOT EFFECTIVE AND APPEARS IN FACT TO BE HARMFUL

Therefore the LOCKDOWN SHOULD BE ENDED

I really don't know how much clearer to make that at this point. At some point ignoring a conclusion goes from debating to willful ignorance

Edit: I think I'm done with this discussion as it is beginning to bore me. I should probably go start a thread or post pictures of my new 510 project.

From my vantage your facts are as good as anyone's. Maybe the flawed model was flawed. What ever the mortality rate I'm sure it's higher than the seasonal flu which is about half in a year what the covid is now in 1/4 that time. I say the lock down was effective and served a purpose to start and then harmful and should have be ended.